Cognitive Style of Culture and the Problem of Cultural-Historical Cognitive Development

Glebkin, Vladimir

doi:10.5771/0257-9774-2015-2-573

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nisbett (2004) regards “harmony” as the Chinese counterpart to Greek “agency” and, on this ground, explains why East Asian cultures are more field-dependent/collectivist in orientation, whereas Westerners retain the field-independent/individualist cognitive style of ancient Greece (p. 5). However, Glebkin (2015) challenges Nisbett’s comparison by pointing out that the cognitive style of ancient Greek culture is field-dependent/collectivist when compared to that of the modern West. Therefore, Glebkin suggests a universal multilevel model of a mental structure where the field-dependent/collectivist cognitive style occupies a deeper level than that of the field-independent/individualist, thereby integrating Nisbett’s cultural dichotomy into the different levels of a structure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

The Dialectical Mandala Model of Self-cultivation

Azanlansh

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the development of a cross-cultural primary ontological model that can help self-cultivation practitioners illuminate their path and help researchers identify the complex implications, context, and progression of self-cultivation in diverse cultures, especially those associated with Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Integrating self-cultivation traditions into social science research from the perspective of subject-object dichotomy is difficult. However, the assimilation of the mutual implication of subject and object in the Avataṃsaka worldview helps resolve this issue. This study employs the Buddhist tetralemmic dialectic (catuṣkoṭi), which goes beyond the limitations of dualistic and reductionist logic, to construct the Dialectical Mandala Model of Self-cultivation as the first of a two-step epistemological strategy. The model provides a universal framework for the multifaceted and systemic analysis of self-cultivation traditions so that future research can further develop additional culturally specific ontologies and psychological models in the second step of the strategy. As in a research map, this model could help researchers make ontological commitments, understand self-cultivation more comprehensively, and determine whether they have overlooked any research domain.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

The Dialectical Mandala Model of Self-cultivation

Azanlansh

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such studies have typically examined behavioral and/or neural patterns associated with parsing a naturalistic movie into discrete events online and in memory. Behavioral studies using this approach findings indicate 4/5‐ to 7‐year‐olds parse continuous experience into discrete events but agree less on when those parses occur compared to high‐school students (Glebkin et al., 2019) and adults (Benear et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2020). Corresponding neuroimaging work has found that neocortex activation becomes increasingly separated into stable and coherent events while watching a naturalistic movie between ages 5 and 19 years (Cohen et al., 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asynchronous development of memory integration and differentiation influences temporal memory organization

Coughlin,

Pudhiyidath,

Roome

et al. 2023

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adults remember items with shared contexts as occurring closer in time to one another than those associated with different contexts, even when their objective temporal distance is fixed. Such temporal memory biases are thought to reflect within‐event integration and between‐event differentiation processes that organize events according to their contextual similarities and differences, respectively. Within‐event integration and between‐event differentiation are hypothesized to differentially rely on binding and control processes, which may develop at different ages. To test this hypothesis, 5‐ to 12‐year‐olds and adults (N = 134) studied quartets of image pairs that contained either the same scene (same‐context) or different scenes (different‐context). Participants remembered same‐context items as occurring closer in time by older childhood (7–9 years), whereas different‐context items were remembered as occurring farther apart by early adolescence (10–12 years). The differential emergence of these temporal memory biases suggests within‐event integration and between‐event differentiation emerge at different ages.Research Highlights Children are less likely than adults to use contextual information (e.g., location) to organize their continuous experience in memory, as indicated by temporal memory biases. Biases reflecting within‐event integration (i.e., remembering elements with a shared context as occurring closer together in time) emerged in late childhood. Biases reflecting between‐event differentiation (i.e., remembering elements from different contexts as occurring farther apart in time) emerged in early adolescence. The differential emergence of biases reflecting within‐event integration and between‐event differentiation suggests they are distinct, yet complementary, processes that support developmental improvements in event memory organization.

show abstract

“…Specifically, Event Segmentation Theory proposes that general knowledge influences how individuals parse ongoing perceptual activity into overarching events and discrete subevents (Zacks et al, 2007). Adolescents and adults thus detect event boundaries at more consistent locations compared to children, likely due to their relatively mature general knowledge frameworks (Glebkin et al, 2019; Zheng et al, 2020). Segmented events form the basis of episodic memory, so how individuals segment events has implications for what they recall (Radvansky & Zacks, 2014; Swallow et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consistency amongst pairs: How consistent are child co‐witnesses with one another?

Deck

Brubacher

Dickinson

et al. 2023

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose When multiple children are asked about the same event, the consistency of their reports may be used as a heuristic for credibility. Little research has considered how consistent child co‐witnesses are likely to be. In this study, we explored how likely child co‐witnesses were to report the same details from a mutually experienced event. Methods Pairs of children participated in an educational science event during which the target attempted to coax the children into breaking preestablished rules for the session (i.e., commit transgressions). Children were individually interviewed about their experience on two subsequent occasions. Results Co‐witnesses tended to be quite inconsistent: 32%–55% of all details recalled were only mentioned by one co‐witness. Various factors were associated with co‐witness consistency, including delay before the interview, centrality of details recalled, and children's age and forthcomingness. Conclusions The findings indicate that inconsistency between co‐witnesses reflects a natural memory phenomenon, and that practitioners should be cautious of using co‐witness consistency as an indicator of credibility.

show abstract

Cognitive Style of Culture and the Problem of Cultural-Historical Cognitive Development

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

The Dialectical Mandala Model of Self-cultivation

The Dialectical Mandala Model of Self-cultivation

Asynchronous development of memory integration and differentiation influences temporal memory organization

Consistency amongst pairs: How consistent are child co‐witnesses with one another?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About